« My Reason article is online | Main | Never bring a toy to a gunfight »
Mass media and analysis
from the WashPo, Four reasons why "stand your ground will not be repealed."
The logical reasons would be (1) It represents the overwhelming current of American law, as followed in 40+ states (and in limited degrees by all but one of them; (2) it reflects the views of the people; (3) why should a person in the right be sent to prison because a criminal chooses to attack them, and put them in reasonable fear that the will be killed?
Instead, it's Republicans control most State legislatures, the NRA is powerful, etc. No debate on policy, just something that could be written in ten minutes without research.
6 Comments | Leave a comment
What is the fourth reason ?
"What is the fourth reason ?"
(4)Because Florida is the "Gunshine" State and we have no intention of changing our nickname!!
In all seriousness, SE Florida; Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami/Dade counties are full of retiree from the NE; NJ and NY. They elected (D) prosecutors who were prosecuting Self Defense cases that were good shooting because of there personal and political anti-gun bias.
Something needed to change and we passed "immunity from prosecution" we also passed "stand your ground", but please don't confuse the two.
Florida Statute chapter 776 is short and sweet. Please take the time to read it.
Spurs just announced that Kawhi Leonard and Tim Duncan are both out to ight with sore left knees.
Stand your ground is also being attacked as allowing one to not retreat in order to not "lose face", which also is an appeal to ignorance, as the factual bases for self defense are always sent to the jury, where they are tested with a reasonableness standard.
Do you think Justice Holmes' comments in Brown v US would make a basis for "stand your ground" being part of the Constitutional right to self-defense?
I have always thought the famous aphorism coined by Holmes ("Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife") would make a great opening to either a brief or, better, the majority opinion -- especially since Holmes & SCOTUS was rejecting the "duty to retreat" nonsense.
Sir, you have just brilliantly explained why it got published.